HE WON'T read out to us the terms of the Doctrinal Preamble of April 15, 2012 between Bishop Fellay and [apostate] Rome and explain to us what it really means and what its consequences could be.
This is a great point.
My observation on this is, that +Fellay has not acknowledged his response.
This is properly termed his 15 April 2012 Response to the Doctrinal Preamble
of September 14th, 2011 from Rome. +W refers to it as the "Doctrinal
Declaration (of the SSPX), addressed by the General Council of the Society
of St Pius X to the Church authorities in Rome."
But I like to ask, "Why has +Fellay not acknowledged it?" Bishop Williamson
made it a topic of an entire EC which was probably his most technical EC ever.
He did not hold back on the jargon and lexicon in his Letter to the Priests that
came two weeks before that EC 300, 13 Apr. 2013 (OPEN LETTER TO PRIESTS
of the SOCIETY of ST PIUS X, 28 March 2013, Holy Thursday
). It is a hard read
by anyone's standards. He gave the priests a 2-week window to study up
before getting pounded by the Faithfuls' questions!
And +Fellay got all worked up into a tizzy over it. He DID NOT WANT that
response of his leaked out. Now it comes out that he had shared it with the
other 3 bishops and a select small group (a.k.a. the Menzingen-denizens) in
April and May of 2012, but he SWORE THEM TO SECRECY. Now why would
he bother to make them swear to secrecy? Because he does not want the
lemmings in the pews to know about this! Because it contains principles
that are CONTRADICTORY to the openly expressed truths that ABL gave
out freely to all the Faithful of the world, without restriction.
So now, when anyone chimes in with the Accordista canard of "how do you
know that's really the Response of +Fellay to Rome" all you have to do is
tell them, "Well, if it is NOT, then why has +Fellay not denied it? After all,
if it was FALSE, then all he would have to do is SAY SO, and say "THIS IS
FALSE." But he doesn't do that, does he? No, he doesn't. He hasn't,
he isn't, and he won't!! HOW DO I KNOW that? Because, he does not want
the Faithful thinking about it.
And this is how he accomplishes that trick: To Keep Everyone From
Thinking About It, He Simply Pretends It's Not Authentic.
You know, he has claimed that other things are "Internet rumours" and the
like, but notice how he has been frequently VAGUE about the object of his
accusation. WHAT is the "rumour" to which he refers? He doesn't say!
And why not? Well, he lets you think you are "smart" by figuring it out on
your own. He says it without saying it. This is a Communist tactic, one of
the errors of Russia, only it is WE who are doing it, by following his evil
leadership. In this way, he has not said that the Response that +W has
disseminated by way of his unforgivable ECs is a "rumour" that we should
ignore, but even though he has not said it, he still has all the lemmings
believing it!! TA - DAAA!!
Rabbit out of the hat trick!
And now for the clincher: Why does he not just say "That is not my
Response?" Because then someone with one or two brain cells left
between their ears is going to ask, "OKAY, IF THAT ISN'T YOUR RESPONSE,
THEN SHOW US WHAT YOUR RESPONSE ACTUALLY WAS!!" And what's he
going to do? Admit that he doesn't want you to see it? No way!! That's the
truth but he does not want you to think about that truth.
So to keep you from thinking about demanding to see his Response to
the Doctrinal Preamble (Oh, right - the Doctrinal Preamble from 19 months
ago that we STILL HAVE NOT SEEN!!), he simply neglects to "even go there."
And the lap-cat-lemmings sit there and let him pet you and you purr.
Purr, Pray, Pay and Obey!
The Newmass needed Annibale Bugnini, Communism in Venezuela needed
Hugo Chavez, Nazi Germany needed Adolf Hitler, and the Neo-SSPX needs